Article 12
Provided that road safety is not thereby jeopardised and to
enable the vehicle to reach a suitable stopping place, the driver
may depart from Articles 6 to 9 to the extent necessary to
ensure the safety of persons, of the vehicle or its load. The
driver shall indicate the reason for such departure manually on
the record sheet of the recording equipment or on a printout
from the recording equipment or in the duty roster, at the
latest on arrival at the suitable stopping place.
If I “depart Article 8” (for instance) and work a 15 and a half hour day for absolutely, traceable, documented reason/incident; totally within both the letter and the spirit, do I a) commit an offence in the absolute strictest sense - and am I b) liable to an infringement note ?
a) I would say no, not even in the strictest sense. If the regulations allow you to do something surely you cannot be committing an offence by doing something you are allowed to do. obviously all the requirements of Article 12 would have to be met. You couldn’t run 30 minutes over your time at 7 o’clock in the evening because you were stuck in a traffic jam at 10 o’clock in the morning.
b) Again I would say no. An infringement is for doing something you are not allowed to do, not for doing something you are allowed to do.
A little while ago I went over the 4.5 hour driving period by about 25 minutes due to being stuck in a traffic jam for close to 4 hours. I managed to get a 15 minute break in but not a 30 to go with it as the traffic kept moving every 20 minutes or so. I took a printout, wrote an explanation and that went to the analysis people with my downloads. When the report came back the deviation from the regulations was noted but I wasn’t given an infringement to sign as the fact there was an explanation was also noted on the report.
Coffeeholic:
. . . . . . . When the report came back the deviation from the regulations was noted but I wasn’t given an infringement to sign as the fact there was an explanation was also noted on the report.
Yeah - that’s where my argument starts.
I had a genuine “departure” a few months ago. Did the print-outs. Did the manual entry on the back. Etc etc etc.
Still had an infringement.
Didn’t really bother me at the time because I’m generally in the soup anyway about the infringe letters.
I’ve had that refused to sign the infringment nothing said …
I’ve even had infringments for speed trace on 3 tacho’s where i had’nt noticed it was not settng to Zero kms with the same truck, went back and looked back for the whole month and guess what they hadnt picked up the rest of the month so I told the boss if they cant do it right every time they could ZB off nothing said nothing signed
Coffeeholic:
. . . . . . . When the report came back the deviation from the regulations was noted but I wasn’t given an infringement to sign as the fact there was an explanation was also noted on the report.
Yeah - that’s where my argument starts.
I had a genuine “departure” a few months ago. Did the print-outs. Did the manual entry on the back. Etc etc etc.
Still had an infringement.
Didn’t really bother me at the time because I’m generally in the soup anyway about the infringe letters.
Hi mate
what could be happening here is that your firm is not looking at the printouts and just printing the infringements sheet
a firm I worked for did the same give me infringements for some thing, but the thing I had done wrong was on the back of the tacho or printout. what I did was when I did something that warranted a printout on the digital printout, I would take a copy and keep that for my records just in case it comes back to haunt you.
what could be happening here is that your firm is not looking at the printouts and just printing the infringements sheet
a firm I worked for did the same give me infringements for some thing, but the thing I had done wrong was on the back of the tacho or printout. what I did was when I did something that warranted a printout on the digital printout, I would take a copy and keep that for my records just in case it comes back to haunt you.
just an idea mate
What is happening is that like many, my employers effectively “contracts out” the analysis.
Until I raised the objection - they would issue “insufficient daily rest” infringements because, possibly, their software couldn’t pick up/identify “split rests”
I think the reality (regarding my initial post) is possibly that my employer doesn’t tell the analysis company that I’ve physically handed in the relevant printout claiming an “Article 12 Departure” so the analyst obviously, and quite rightly issues the infringement letter.
Saving printouts ■■?
I’m one of the muppets that takes a printout every single day. And keep them. For the very reason you mention Del and because I have a Swiss Cheese memory. When I get an infringe letter, I go back and double check the reality before throwing the letter to File 13
dambuster:
What is happening is that like many, my employers effectively “contracts out” the analysis.
Until I raised the objection - they would issue “insufficient daily rest” infringements because, possibly, their software couldn’t pick up/identify “split rests”
I think the reality (regarding my initial post) is possibly that my employer doesn’t tell the analysis company that I’ve physically handed in the relevant printout claiming an “Article 12 Departure” so the analyst obviously, and quite rightly issues the infringement letter.
We have exactly the same problems. We now have to note a split rest on our time sheets.
dambuster:
What is happening is that like many, my employers effectively “contracts out” the analysis.
Until I raised the objection - they would issue “insufficient daily rest” infringements because, possibly, their software couldn’t pick up/identify “split rests”
I think the reality (regarding my initial post) is possibly that my employer doesn’t tell the analysis company that I’ve physically handed in the relevant printout claiming an “Article 12 Departure” so the analyst obviously, and quite rightly issues the infringement letter.
We have exactly the same problems. We now have to note a split rest on our time sheets.
You can write all you like on the tacho’s ie anolog the out sourced analysis still wont pick it up they dont even pick up change of vehicle sometimes and infringe for a break in tacho recordings
There is software which correctly identifies split rest out there and some analysis companies must be using it. We do a lot of split rests, the Dublin run is a split rest each way due to the ferry crossing and the only way we can legally do 3 of them in a row is to use a split daily rest. Our reports for those days come back with “Split Daily Rest” marked on them.
nick2008:
You can write all you like on the tacho’s ie anolog the out sourced analysis still wont pick it up they dont even pick up change of vehicle sometimes and infringe for a break in tacho recordings
I guess it depends on the company being used and how much you are paying for their service. Pay crap out, get crap back.
Strictly speaking if you go over a driving limit (4.5 hour, daily, weekly or fortnightly) or do not have sufficient break or rest (daily or weekly) you have committed an offence. What Article 12 does is give you an ‘automatic defence’ in that the breach of the Regulation was not foreseeable and was beyond your control and you only continued to breach the regulation to reach the nearest available, suitable parking location. If you stick with the conditions imposed by Article 12, you will not be prosecuted.
There is lots of very clever drivers hours analysis software out there. Unfortunately quite a lot of it is written by folk that haven’t got a Scoobies about drivers hours. Some will look at the Regulation, decide the exemption or derogation is too difficult to write coding for and take the easy option. Trouble with that is the software produces inaccurate reports that will be ignored or fall into disrepute.
Remember an occasion with analogue charts where the analysis company indicated that the chart had been withdrawn from the tacho before the end of a shift and such withdrawal was unlawful unless requested by the Police of Vehicle inspectorate. The chart was clearly marked with my name, phone number, location of check and the fact that I worked for VOSA, we had been VOSA and not the VI for 2 years, nice to see some analysis companies keep up with the times!! The analysis company also had difficulty explaining what a driver should do if they changed vehicles mid-shift yet were not allowed to take the chart out of the original vehicle until the end of the shift - Muppets!
geebee45:
Strictly speaking if you go over a driving limit (4.5 hour, daily, weekly or fortnightly) or do not have sufficient break or rest (daily or weekly) you have committed an offence. What Article 12 does is give you an ‘automatic defence’ in that the breach of the Regulation was not foreseeable and was beyond your control and you only continued to breach the regulation to reach the nearest available, suitable parking location. If you stick with the conditions imposed by Article 12, you will not be prosecuted.
Thanks for that geebee45.
This is part of a very important ongoing discussion at work.
Clearly, I 'm about to disagree with your viewpoint. I intend to argue that the infringement doesn’t exist if all the conditions/requirements of Article 12 are met. Rather than “If you stick with the conditions imposed by Article 12, you will not be prosecuted” I’d say that you could not be successfully prosecuted.
So . . . . . . . As you say “Strictly speaking” . . . . (Given the assumption that all the requirements of Article 12 are met)
The Regulation says that I can drive for 270 minutes without the need of a break. If I drive for 270 minutes then take the required break, there’s no infringement/offence. That’s a given. The same can be said of the Daily/Weekly Rest requirements.
The Regulation says that, under certain conditions, a driver may depart from specified, particular Articles of that Regulation. So rather than providing an ‘automatic defence’ I would suggest Article 12 creates a situation that prevents the offence being committed.
“the driver may depart from Articles 6 to 9” therefore Articles 6 to 9 do not apply, so it’s not actually possible to infringe those Articles while Article 12 applies.
I think that to create an ‘automatic defence’ the content of Article 12 would need to be a separate, albeit related piece of legislation. Similar I think to the regulations applying to the illumination of certain speed limit signs almost providing an automatic defence to some speeding offences/charges.
geebee45:
Strictly speaking if you go over a driving limit (4.5 hour, daily, weekly or fortnightly) or do not have sufficient break or rest (daily or weekly) you have committed an offence. What Article 12 does is give you an ‘automatic defence’ in that the breach of the Regulation was not foreseeable and was beyond your control and you only continued to breach the regulation to reach the nearest available, suitable parking location. If you stick with the conditions imposed by Article 12, you will not be prosecuted.
so your saying that if you did have to use Article 12 and carry on to the nearest stopping point, what would be classed as the nearest stopping point, would there be an allowed number of km’s, or time to get to a safe stopping place, who makes the decision on how far before your prosecuted, and what would be classed as a suitable parking location, is the lay by off the slip road or a proper truck stop or could it be in fact base, how are we to know what vosa consider a safe stopping place
so lets look at three possibilities
10 mins from base
6 min from lay-by
8 mins truck stop
i know that you probably say lay by
but is that a safe stopping place
would vosa allow any of them as finding a suitable parking location
Try delboytwo to not mix “the Vosa position, or guideline or interpretation” with the actual Regulation.
Clearly the Vosa guideline, et al, will influence Vosa’s decision as to bring a prosecution, but it can sometimes be argued that the two don’t match (Vosa guide/interpretation and the actual legislation)
VOSA’s take is that if you have an issue that takes you outwith the required hours you should take note of said issue to whatever extent you need to assist any queries at a later date (and that can be some months later remember).
But just because you consider you had a legitimate excuse doesn’t mean they will accept it, it’s not a panacea for all events. They can prosecute if they feel it is in the public interest to do so and then, as ever, it’s up to the courts to decide. Likewise if you end up at Public Inquiry, it’s up to the TC to decide if they accept your excuse. The important thing is take note at the time, and keep any paperwork or whatnot that you think backs you up.
I assume cops take the same attatude though can’t confirm that.
they hadnt picked up the rest of the month so I told the boss if they cant do it right every time they could ZB off nothing said nothing signed 
I’m one of the muppets that takes a printout every single day. And keep them. For the very reason you mention Del and because I have a Swiss Cheese memory. When I get an infringe letter, I go back and double check the reality before throwing the letter to File 13 